SoVote

Feb/7/23 3:34:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I hope the member appreciates that I will directly answer his question. I will not try to avoid answering it, as the Conservatives do every time I ask a question about changing their position on their platform. At the time, I thought that was the right solution and now I do not. I realized that pricing something actually impacts choice in the marketplace, and I have changed my mind on it. Do members see how easy that was? When someone changes their mind on something, as the Conservatives clearly did since the last election, it is okay to get up and talk about it and explain to people that they once had one position on something and now have a different position on it. I would encourage the Conservatives to recognize my ability to do that, and I would encourage them to do the same thing as it relates to their platform commitment in the last election to put a price on pollution.

165 words

Mr. Kyle Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC)

Feb/7/23 3:35:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if we want to talk about some numbers, I will start with this number: 415%. The Orangeville Food Bank, which is in my riding of Dufferin—Caledon, has just put out information saying that the number of seniors accessing the food bank in Orangeville has gone up 415%. That is the result of eight years of the Liberal government. The Liberals will say that we should stop talking about how expensive things are and stop talking about how difficult things are for Canadians; everything is great. Well, everything is not great after eight years of the Liberal government. Forty-five per cent of Canadians are within $200 of not being able to make ends meet. That is another inconvenient number for the government, but it is also the result of eight years of the current Liberal government. Then we get to the question of why we are here. Why do so many seniors have to go to the food bank? Why are so many households within $200 of not being able to make ends meet? It is because life has gotten so much more expensive under the Liberal government. Why has that happened? I will today look at one thing. I will talk about the carbon tax. The carbon tax is the mother of taxes because it is put on everything. We have heard today many Conservative members talk about the effect the carbon tax has on agriculture. My riding is a proud agricultural producer. It is the number one driver of economic activity, and guess what. The carbon tax is punishing farmers. The government will say erroneously that eight out of 10 Canadians will get more money back from the carbon tax than they pay in. I will deal with that a little later in this speech, because it is quite frankly not true. In the context of farming and agriculture, there are farmers who get carbon tax bills for drying grain and doing other things on the farm that add up to somewhere in the neighbourhood of $30,000 to $40,000 per year. What is their rebate? It is $800. They are not getting more money back than they pay into the carbon tax. Farmers from coast to coast to coast are being absolutely crushed by the Liberal carbon tax. We could say that it is their problem, but let us think about what that actually means. When a carbon tax of $40,000 is put on an agricultural producer, they have to pass on the cost of it. They cannot just absorb it and go bankrupt. What does that mean? It means that when families go to the grocery store, everything is more expensive, and it is a lot more expensive. Maybe when there is a 415% increase in the number of seniors going to the food bank, there might be a connection. Food is getting much more expensive because of the carbon tax, and seniors are going to a food bank. Forty-five per cent of Canadians are within $200 of not being to make ends meet. Why is that? It is because everything is more expensive. Their food is more expensive because producers are paying this gigantic carbon tax. It does not end there. Yes, producers are paying the carbon tax, but the carbon tax is also put on the vehicles that get driven. I neglected to say that I am splitting my time with the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. When we are taking a crop by truck from a farm to where it will ultimately be consumed, it is going to be subject to a carbon tax. At the grocery store where that food is, someone will have to heat the grocery store. The heating is subject to the carbon tax, so the store increases prices. All along the line and all along the food chain, everyone is charging more. What does that mean? It means the farmer charges more, the transport company charges more and the grocery store charges more. It also means everyone is paying much more for the basic necessity of eating. When one talks about heating one's home, it is the same thing. Many constituents come to me and say, “Look at this bill. Look at the carbon tax on my bill. I cannot afford it.” The government tells them to stop. It says that it is giving them some money, so they are going to be better off. Of course, I will get back to that. They are not better off. If they were better off, 45% of Canadians would not be within $200 of failing to make ends meet. If the carbon tax is so wonderful, as the government says, and if it pours so much money back into the pockets of Canadians, why do we have statistics like this? The rhetoric does not actually meet with reality. Let us talk about the effect of the carbon tax on trade. I will go back to agricultural products. Canada is a proud exporting nation. Over 60% of our GDP is from exports. Agriculture is a huge part of that. When we make our farmers incur $30,000 or $40,000 in carbon tax, guess what? Their agricultural products are more expensive. It is harder for them to access foreign markets. What does that mean? Less profit comes back to Canadian farmers. Then, they cannot invest in new machinery, new equipment and everything else. The carbon tax is a tax on life. It is making life unaffordable for Canadians across the entire economic spectrum. Only a Liberal government would say that it is going to take dollars through the carbon tax and give back dimes and that we should be grateful, that we are better off. That is the message to Canadians every single day, that they should be so lucky. If the carbon tax were actually doing something, one might be able to justify the senior going to the food bank or the family with the thermostat down to 17°C in the winter. One could say that it was actually doing something, but guess what? It is actually not. Under the Liberal government, carbon emissions have gone up every year. It will say, no, they went down in 2020. Yes they did go down during the pandemic, when the economy was shut down. If that is the plan, the government should be honest with Canadians. If it wants emissions to go down by 9% and it is therefore going to have the economy contract by 5%, just stand up and let Canadians know so that they can decide how they want to vote in the next election. It is causing enormous pain in this country. It is causing inflation. Even the Bank of Canada has admitted that the carbon tax is inflationary. We have an inflation problem in the country, but they will keep saying that we are against the carbon tax, that we do not care about the environment and that we do not care about climate change. Actually, they are the ones who do not seem to care, because the carbon tax is doing nothing to reduce Canadian carbon emissions. On that very simple formula of whether it reduces emissions, the unequivocal answer is no, it does not. It is an absolute failure. Let us turn to the final piece of the puzzle. They will say that eight out of 10 Canadians are better off. They get more money as a result of the carbon tax than they pay into it. There was a report that said that. However, then the PBO did another report called “A Distributional Analysis of Federal Carbon Pricing under A Healthy Environment and A Healthy Economy”. It showed that when we factor in the effects of the carbon tax across the economy, which I was just talking about, it makes everything more expensive and leads to unemployment. Most Canadian families lose. It is like saying that I have an A in science because I got an A on the mid-term and an F on the final. That is effectively what they are saying. The first report is irrelevant because the PBO dug deeper. I know it is hard. I mean, it is 20 pages, so they might not have the intestinal fortitude to read it. Pages 18 to 20 make it abundantly clear that the carbon tax is hurting Canadians. Why will they not scrap it?

1417 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Feb/7/23 3:45:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, decades ago, Alberta was one of the first governments in North America to implement the principles of a price on pollution. We had individuals like Stephen Harper who supports the principles of a price on pollution. We have 338 Conservative candidates in the last federal election who campaigned on the principles of a price on pollution. A brand new, shiny leader, who is losing his shine awfully quickly, took ownership of the Conservative Party. Now they have taken a major twist that has turned into a flip-flop. Why and how does the Conservative Party today justify rejecting the principles of a price on pollution when every other administration throughout the world seems to be adopting it?

119 words

Mr. Kyle Seeback

Feb/7/23 3:46:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the carbon tax is punitive. That is why we want to scrap it. People living in a rural area, heating their homes with propane and driving long distances to work are getting absolutely demolished by the carbon tax, and the Liberals will wax on, saying, “So what?” The carbon tax is designed to hurt rural Canadians, and it does. That is why we want to scrap it. It is an awful carbon tax. The Liberals should be embarrassed to keep propping it up. They should be taking responsibility for what they are doing to Canadian families and the affordability crisis. The carbon tax is one thing they could do to fix it, but they are so stubborn and ideological that they will not.

127 words

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

Feb/7/23 3:47:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres denounced the corporate greed of oil and gas companies, saying they are making outrageous profits on the backs of the poor. ExxonMobil amassed a $74‑billion net profit. Why are the Conservatives not proposing a tax on these enormously excessive profits?

49 words

Mr. Kyle Seeback

Feb/7/23 3:47:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member seems to not understand that oil and gas companies pay enormous amounts of taxes and they fund social programs and other things across the country. Is the member saying that when they have a good year we should tax them more? Is he saying that in a bad year the government should be paying those companies some money? If those companies have a good year, they pay a lot of taxes. If they have a bad year, they do not. That is how the system works. If he does not like it, maybe he should come up with a better system.

105 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Feb/7/23 3:48:11 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, if this is really about tax fairness, why do the Conservatives not agree to tax the ultrarich, like Loblaws, which has profited millions while Canadians are struggling to pay for groceries?

32 words

Mr. Kyle Seeback

Feb/7/23 3:48:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, all companies in our country pay taxes. When they have good years, they pay a lot of taxes. When they do not have good years, they pay very little taxes. That is how the system is absolutely designed. All companies should pay their fair share of taxes. If companies are engaging in profiteering, that should be examined. However, the tax system is pretty clear: If one makes money, one pays taxes.

73 words

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Feb/7/23 3:48:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have an invoice in front of me from an aerial applicator for agricultural spraying services, which is good for the environment because it reduces compaction of the soil, allowing for higher yields. The bill is for $84,000 of which $7,000 is the carbon tax. It is making life unaffordable at every step of the supply chain. Would my colleague from Dufferin—Caledon comment on how charges like this make such a significant difference?

79 words

Mr. Kyle Seeback

Feb/7/23 3:49:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member is right. Those are exactly the same charges that farmers in my riding pay for drying grain. Maybe the Liberal members do not understand that they have to dry grain. They pay enormous carbon taxes as a result of doing that. What happens then? The price of grain goes up. On whatever crop was being used, the price is going to go up. The carbon tax makes everything more expensive, and farmers do not get more money back than they pay in. The result is higher prices at the grocery store, families going to food banks and families being within $200 of not being able to make ends meet. The Liberals should really give Canadians a break and cut the carbon tax.

126 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC)

Feb/7/23 3:50:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this important debate on environmental and fiscal issues. Climate change is real. Humans contributed to climate change, so humans must contribute to reducing pollution around the globe. When I say humans, I am referring to everyone. I am referring to citizens, entrepreneurs, businesses, governments, states. I am referring to everyone. We must pitch in to reduce the environmental footprint of our actions in order to reduce pollution. The path the government has taken to address the problem of pollution and reduce pollution is taxation. The Liberals love to say that they are putting a price on pollution. In real terms, it is called the Liberal carbon tax. The minister was very proud to say earlier that this tax has only been in place since 2019. It has been around for almost four years, nearly half their time in power. That is not to mention that, starting in 2016, the government clearly stated that it was going to impose the Liberal carbon tax. It is time to take stock. What is the actual, concrete result of this Liberal carbon tax? Has pollution been reduced? The answer is no. This is why we do not like the Liberal carbon tax and want to put it aside. This is why we have a concrete plan to address the climate change challenges that we have to face and to be sure that we will have real results for all Canadians. Unfortunately, the Liberal carbon tax is not delivering less pollution. It is not me saying that. It is the entire planet acknowledging it. Let us start at home. The Governor of the Bank of Canada has clearly stated that the implementation of the carbon tax, which will start to triple in April, has a direct impact on inflation. Everyone knows that the number one economic challenge for every Canadian family right now is inflation. The Governor of the Bank of Canada says that the Liberal carbon tax drives inflation higher. Canadians need that like they need a hole in the head. The Parliamentary Budget Officer concluded in a study that Canadian families get back less than they pay in. The Liberal strategy was to say that they were putting a Liberal tax on carbon, but that they would give Canadians and families a rebate so they would come out even. That sounds great in principle. It sounds great in the classroom. It sounds great to spout high-minded principles and virtue signal. However, the reality, as confirmed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, is that families are paying more than they are getting back from the government. We know that, as of April 1, the government will begin tripling the carbon tax. That will have a direct impact on fuel, transportation, food prices and heating. I talked about the whole world recognizing what the Liberal government is doing. Let us see the facts. A report based on a study by the United Nations was tabled at COP27. In November and December, the entire planet gathered in Egypt for COP27. It is an odd place if ever there was one to talk about climate change, but it is not up to us to choose the location. It is up to the UN. A report was tabled in the first few days on the track record of the planet as a whole, on the efforts being made to combat pollution and climate change. This report assessed 63 countries. I have that document here. The first study that was done provides a clear picture of how countries performed when it comes to dealing with climate change. Canada, under this Liberal government, ranks 58th. We did not come up with this, the UN did. A panel of experts was created to analyze the 63 most developed nations in the world. Canada ranks 58th out of 63 countries. These are people who have been constantly telling us for seven years now that “Canada is back”. They say that Canada is doing great, that we are making extraordinary efforts, that we have ambitious targets, that we are good for the environment. I would remind the House that Canada ranks 58 out of 63 countries. The Liberals have always been sanctimonious. That is what I had to say about tackling climate change. Concerning greenhouse gas emissions, Canada, under the current Liberal government, ranks 57th out of 63 countries. That is not as bad, since it has moved up by one spot. That is what Canada is like with the Liberal carbon tax. Concerning renewable energy, Canada ranks 52nd out of 63 countries. There are 51 countries that are more effective than this sanctimonious government. Finally, if we look at the evaluation of energy use, Canada, under this sanctimonious Liberal government, ranks 63rd out of 63 countries. It is not the Conservatives saying so, it is the United Nations in a report tabled at COP27. The document concludes that, when it comes to climate change, Canada, under this sanctimonious Liberal government that created the Liberal carbon tax, ranks 58th out of 63 countries. “Canada is back” said the Prime Minister when he was elected. Canada is way back eight years later; that is the truth. Those are the UN's rankings. Let me also remind the House that those folks over there got elected by saying that Canada was going to be a world leader in the fight against climate change. I remember one particular moment very clearly. The member for Papineau had not been Prime Minister for three months when he went to a conference in Toronto to lecture everyone. He said that, yes, for sure, Canada is back and that what matters is not just what is under our feet, but what is between our ears. He was proud to say those words, as though when we were in government, we did not care what people had between their ears. How arrogant. In fact, it is more than arrogant considering that, after eight years of a Liberal government, Liberal Canada ranks 58th out of 63 countries in the fight against climate change. None of the targets it set were met. Pollution was not reduced, despite the Paris Agreement. They said that the previous Conservative government's track record on the environment was abysmal, even though greenhouse gas emissions in the energy sector were reduced by 2.2% during the eight years of our government. The Paris Agreement could have changed the world. What did the entire planet do in Paris in 2015? It used the exact same targets set by the Canadian Conservative government, to the decimal point. What did this government do with that target? It did nothing, zero. Out of about 200 countries, barely a dozen or so met the Paris target. Where does the Liberal Canada of this sanctimonious government rank? It is missing in action. It is not among those who achieved the goal of the Paris Agreement. This is typical Liberal virtue signalling. What are the results? That is why we see the Liberal decision to impose a tax as a tax plan, not a pollution reduction plan. In addition, the Liberals plan to impose their vision and their numbers on all the provinces, including on us, on Quebec. Quebec decided to join a carbon exchange. This proves that the federal government did not have to get involved, because the provinces could have done it if they wanted to. Prices were set, but the federal government decided it had the power to impose its own carbon price on the provinces whose system is different from the federal system. We will see in April, six months from now, a year from now, once the Liberal government has tripled the carbon tax, how the provinces respond. What will happen when the government increases the carbon tax? The provinces will be stuck with it and will not have the right to say a word about it. We will see what the Liberal government does with that. Our approach has always been clear. We want to use technology, not taxes, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Everyone, all Canadians, individuals, businesses and governments, we all have to work together to reduce greenhouse gases using fiscal incentives, not punitive taxes. We also have to green-light green energy to make it more readily available to Canadians. What our leader said when he became the leader of the Conservative Party and the official opposition was absolutely right. He said: “Green light to green projects”. This is where we stand. We have a policy to help people, not to tax them.

1443 words

All Topics

Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

Feb/7/23 4:00:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I enjoy working with the hon. member on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. The hon. member mentioned the UN, and he will recall the UN Kyoto climate accord, which the Conservatives cancelled. They not only did not meet their targets; they cancelled their targets. They cut $350 million from the environment and climate change budget. There was not an environmental program they met that they did not want to cancel. They did absolutely nothing for 10 long years. I am wondering if the hon. member could share with us if he is proud of the Conservative record and maybe hit the high points of the Conservative climate plan. I would be curious.

117 words

The Speaker

Feb/7/23 4:01:02 p.m.
Watch

Order. I am sure the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent can answer the question. He does not need any help. The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

28 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell

Feb/7/23 4:01:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, yes, I have had the great pleasure of working with my colleague on this committee. Yesterday morning, I had to express my point of view defending their policy. We have great communication with that and I enjoy it. It is a warm-up before we come in. In a few years, we will be in this position and we will appreciate the collaboration with the opposition at that time. Speaking of Kyoto, can the minister identify how many countries achieved the Kyoto agreement? There are not many. Maybe some countries liked the Paris Agreement, but again, the Liberals failed to achieve the target for the Paris Agreement. I intend to table in the House the 2023 COP27 report, which concludes that Canada ranks 58th out of 63 countries in addressing climate change. It is the UN document. I am certain everyone will be willing to let me table it.

151 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/7/23 4:02:18 p.m.
Watch

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to table the document? Some hon. members: No. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): Questions and comments, the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

36 words

All Topics

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

Feb/7/23 4:02:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. I like you, sir. I like what you have to say, and you are a good Quebecker. I do not understand—

33 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/7/23 4:02:54 p.m.
Watch

I would remind the hon. member to address the Chair, not the member directly. The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

25 words

Mr. Luc Desilets

Feb/7/23 4:03:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I get too emotional. As I said, I really like the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. I appreciate what he has to say, and I think he is a good Quebecker. I kind of understand the Conservative ideology, and I respect it, but I do not really buy into it. My colleague referred to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. I would like to know if he agrees with what the Parliamentary Budget Officer said, that 80% of households are now receiving more money back in rebates than they are paying into the carbon tax. This includes both low- and medium-income households.

104 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell

Feb/7/23 4:03:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I like my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles a lot too. I am certainly very proud to be a Quebecker, and I am also very proud to be a Canadian. He forgot that part. I am also convinced that there is a little Conservative in every good Quebecker. It depends on what we are talking about, of course. When it comes to the management of public funds, we pretty much agree. The hon. member raised a very important point. Our institutions are called upon to assess the impact of each policy. Sometimes the results are good. Sometimes they are not. We have to look at the reality of certain regions. I am not talking specifically about Quebec, because Quebec has its own carbon exchange system. This is proof that the provinces can be self-sufficient in this respect. The National Assembly demonstrated this in 2011-12, if memory serves, under Premier Jean Charest. Quebec decided to implement its own system, which is something the provinces could do, but the federal government decided to meddle and impose its own pricing system. In the places where the Liberal carbon tax applies, the Parliamentary Budget Officer found that 60% of people were not receiving as much money as they were paying for the Liberal carbon tax.

219 words

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP)

Feb/7/23 4:05:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for what I think is a really important moment for Conservatives, and I hope they are listening. They are acknowledging the fact that climate change is real. That is a good place to start. In this place, I seek a consensus, I hope, on issues that are affecting everyday Canadians, and one of them is the environment. The other is the cost of living. There seems to be a red herring when we are talking about the carbon tax because we can in fact do both: We can ensure that we do good by Canadians by making sure we put a price on carbon and returning some of that to the Canadians who need it the most. However, it is not a silver bullet. I agree with the member that the government is failing our environment. It is failing, hands down. It is not a silver bullet and the Liberals are treating it as such. On the other hand, we have the cost-of-living crisis, and New Democrats fought in this House and tabled an amendment to make sure that we would tax excess profits and have windfall tax on corporations. Why did the member vote against it?

208 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 155